Risk Assessment of Lift-Jacking Accidents Using FFTA-FMEA
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Title: “Risk assessment of lift jacking accidents using FFTA-FMEA”
Manuscript number: applsci-2431428
The authors put forward a methodology to assess the risk of lift jacking accidents. Overall, the presented approach is sound, and it may be the way forward in dealing, for example, with uncertainties involved in assessing such risks. More importantly, the manuscript is well organized and well written. It has the potential to be accepted for publication; it may benefit if the authors consider the following comments:
Major comments:
11. In section 2, 2nd para., Lines 80-83, the authors argue that:
“Specifically, in the construction of accident causation assessment models, the reliance on subjective expert judgement has led to the identification of ambiguous and uncertain causal factors, with varying levels of expertise amongst different practitioners. As a result, the analysis results exhibit a lack of objectivity and accuracy.”
But then, in their analysis they employed three experts’ opinions. It may be understood as a contradiction. Isn´t it? Kindly discuss.
22. What are the limitations of the study, if any?
33. Some minor comments:
a). To facilitate the reading, it may be necessary to define the meaning of the acronyms “FFTA”, “FMEA”, “PHA” in the Introduction & Literature review sections. (In fact, these have been defined in section 3, but it is better at the beginning and then in later sections use the acronyms). Think about it.
b). What was the employed software in the analysis?
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 1 Comments
The authors wish to thank the reviewer 1 for the time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.
We hope the changes listed have made the manuscript suitable for publication and we look
forward to your response.
Point 1： In section 2, 2nd para., Lines 80-83, the authors argue that: “Specifically, in the construction of accident causation assessment models, the reliance on subjective expert judgement has led to the identification of ambiguous and uncertain causal factors, with varying levels of expertise amongst different practitioners. As a result, the analysis results exhibit a lack of objectivity and accuracy.” But then, in their analysis they employed three experts’ opinions. It may be understood as a contradiction. Isn´t it? Kindly discuss.
Response 1：Thanks for your comments, which are important and helpful. This is a reminder of our failure to state the opinion well, and the explanation for the question is as follows：
Firstly, when it is difficult to obtain the exact probability of failure of risk factors, judgement through experts’ opinions is a proven approach. However, blind reliance on expert judgement and lack of aggregation can lead to the identification of ambiguous and uncertain causal factors. This issue is also one that some scholars have failed to discuss. To address the issue, we have incorporated a weighting approach into FFTA. We effectively aggregated the assessment opinions of experts and eliminated the effects of subjectivity and uncertainty due to differences in education and experience.
We have added more details in the last paragraph of the literature review. Thank you again for your comment.
Point 2： What are the limitations of the study, if any?
Response 2：Thanks for your comments. We have added details of the shortcomings and outlook in the last paragraph of the article. Here is the content:
The greatest limitation of this study is relatively small number of experts consulted. In future studies, selecting more experts with greater seniority and skills may further improve the accuracy of the model. In addition, although the AP method addresses the problems of the traditional RPN method to some extent, they are still essentially the same. More variants of the FMEA method can be chosen to continually improve the accuracy of the risk assessment.
Point 3： To facilitate the reading, it may be necessary to define the meaning of the acronyms “FFTA”, “FMEA”, “PHA” in the Introduction & Literature review sections. (In fact, these have been defined in section 3, but it is better at the beginning and then in later sections use the acronyms). Think about it.
Response 3：Thanks for your comments. This proposal makes perfect sense. The main acronyms we define are FFTA, FMEA, TE, BE, S, O, D, AP, RPN. I have put all definition process of them in the Abstract & Introduction & Literature review sections. The format will be more suitable. Some other acronyms like “PHA”，“AHP” in literature reviews have little impact on the article, so no explanation has been provided for them.
Thank you again for your suggestion. We have made the appropriate modifications.
Point 4：What was the employed software in the analysis?
Response 4：Thanks for your comments. We used a reliability analysis software called PosVim, which is mainly used for quantitative analysis of fault tree.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review report of article applsci-2431428
In brief, the paper titled “Risk assessment of lift jacking accidents using FFTA-FMEA”
(a) is an exciting work, providing interesting novelties for the lift industry
(b) applies a well-known methodology combination (FTA and FMEA) for assessing risks
(c) handles uncertainty applying fuzzy method,
(c) applies the selected methodological approaches solidly;
(d) fits the journal’s scope and standards.
General findings related to the manuscript
The manuscript contains novelties and new aspects related to lift industry. The rest of the reviewer’s comments focus on the possibility of more significant impacts on the research community. However, there will also be some essential methodological comments. Although the manuscript has potential, it has some weak points in its present form. The two focuspoints of the weaknesses are that the research seems to be too directed in the methodology selection (1), and the paper is rarely connected to the international scientific body of the field of risk assessment (2).
The detailed comments related to (1) and (2) are presented in the following:
(1) The research seems to be too directed in the methodology selection
(1.1)
There is no information why the proposed methodologies are selected for the risk assessment process. The selection was only stated without a clear overview of the possible methodological options.
Please clearly identify the motivation of applying FTA and FMEA in the introduction section. Please clearly describe, why the trapezoidal fuzzy affiliation function is applied instead of other fuzzy functions.
(1.2)
The “Literature review” section clearly provides results related to the lift industry, but there is no review related to the potential risk assessment methods. Connected to (1.1), why the traditional FMEA method was applied with the traditional RPN calculation? There are other FMEA variants as well, which can also have a good fit to this risk assessment problem. Let the reviewer mention the Action Priority (AP) calculation of FMEA, which is an improved calculational method fot RPN and widely used in the industry. Or the PRISM method, which is also built on the O S and D values, but it can realize hidden risks instead of traditional RPN, which is very important in a safety intensive sector, just like the lift industry.
Please review at least these two articles related to AP and PRISM, and contextualize the research deeper related to the risk assessment nature of the subject.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2022.103712
https://doi.org/10.3390/math10050676
(2) The discussion section does not create linkages between the manuscript and other relevant works related to the lift industry, or the risk assessment literature or any scientific results. This is a huge weak point, since in this current phase, the manuscript stands alone with its results.
Please create linkages between the manuscript and the existing literature, and highlight your results from the perspective of the literature.
An additional comment: please summarize the limitations of the study.
In general:
The manuscript has significant potential, but in its present form, the manuscript has some major weaknesses. The reviewer suggests major changes before publication based on the previously written.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 2 Comments
The authors wish to thank the reviewer 2 for the time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.
We hope the changes listed have made the manuscript suitable for publication and we look
forward to your response.
Point 1：There is no information why the proposed methodologies are selected for the risk assessment process. The selection was only stated without a clear overview of the possible methodological options.
Please clearly identify the motivation of applying FTA and FMEA in the introduction section. Please clearly describe, why the trapezoidal fuzzy affiliation function is applied instead of other fuzzy functions.
Response 1：Thanks for your comments, which are very important and helpful. To address the problem, we added FFTA and FMEA theory review in the Literature Review section. We clearly discussed the motivation for using these methods both in Abstract and Literature Review section, and finally pointed out the advantages of the proposed FFTA-FMEA method based on the content of the review. In addition, We clearly discussed the reasons for the use of trapezoidal fuzzy numbers before the application of fuzzy set theory in the third chapter.
Thank you again for your suggestions, as they are very meaningful.
Point 2：The “Literature review” section clearly provides results related to the lift industry, but there is no review related to the potential risk assessment methods. Connected to (1.1), why the traditional FMEA method was applied with the traditional RPN calculation? There are other FMEA variants as well, which can also have a good fit to this risk assessment problem. Let the reviewer mention the Action Priority (AP) calculation of FMEA, which is an improved calculational method fot RPN and widely used in the industry. Or the PRISM method, which is also built on the O S and D values, but it can realize hidden risks instead of traditional RPN, which is very important in a safety intensive sector, just like the lift industry.
Please review at least these two articles related to AP and PRISM, and contextualize the research deeper related to the risk assessment nature of the subject.
Response 2：Thanks for your comments. To refine the review, we have added about 20 risk assessment article citations in the Literature Review section. Through the review, we assumed that the AP method is more advanced and reliable than the RPN method, so we have improved the entire model to make it more reasonable and accurate. The two articles you mentioned are very instructive to us, and we are very grateful and have cited them in the article. Thanks for your instructions again.
Point 3: The discussion section does not create linkages between the manuscript and other relevant works related to the lift industry, or the risk assessment literature or any scientific results. This is a huge weak point, since in this current phase, the manuscript stands alone with its results.
Please create linkages between the manuscript and the existing literature, and highlight your results from the perspective of the literature.
An additional comment: please summarize the limitations of the study.
Response 3：Thanks for your comments. This issue is equally important. However, there is not much in-depth research on the risk of lift accidents internationally. There is almost no research on lift jacking accidents. We have tried our best to find some literature to support our conclusion, proving the reliability and feasibility of the model. In addition, we have added details of the shortcomings and outlook in the last paragraph of the article. Here is the content:
The greatest limitation of this study is relatively small number of experts consulted. In future studies, selecting more experts with greater seniority and skills may further improve the accuracy of the model. In addition, although the AP method addresses the problems of the traditional RPN method to some extent, they are still essentially the same. More variants of the FMEA method can be chosen to continually improve the accuracy of the risk assessment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1) Change the color of Fig.1 from blue to black. Your content is very difficult to read in the current color;
2) On line 155 replace the word "affiliation" with "membership";
3) Clarify the procedure adopted to obtain the frequency values in the Occurrence of Table 3. Inform whether they were based on the literature, on expert estimates or on practical experience. If they have been obtained in practice, it will be important to explain in greater detail the criteria that established the limits of each level;
4) Change the title of chapter 4 to Results;
5) Again, I request that the color of Fig.3 be changed from blue to black;
6) In lines 292 and 293, clarify that Equation 1 is being used.
I recommend that the English language text be proofread by someone whose English is his/her native language.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 3 Comments
The authors wish to thank the reviewer 3 for the time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.
We hope the changes listed have made the manuscript suitable for publication and we look
forward to your response.
Structural point：
- Change the color of Fig.1 from blue to black. Your content is very difficult to read in the current color;
- On line 155 replace the word "affiliation" with "membership";
- Change the title of chapter 4 to Results;
- Again, I request that the color of Fig.3 be changed from blue to black;
- In lines 292 and 293, clarify that Equation 1 is being used.
Response：Thanks for your comments, which are very useful and detailed. We have corrected everything according to your comments. Thank you again for reading the article in a careful and meticulous manner.
Point: Clarify the procedure adopted to obtain the frequency values in the Occurrence of Table 3. Inform whether they were based on the literature, on expert estimates or on practical experience. If they have been obtained in practice, it will be important to explain in greater detail the criteria that established the limits of each level;
Response：Thanks for your comments, which is very meaningful. The content we added is as follows:
Based on review of literature on the failure of special equipment components, it has been decided by consensus of experts that each grade corresponds to an interval of probability of failure.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Second review report of article applsci-2431428
This manuscript is a resubmitted version of article applsci-2431428. In my review of article applsci-2431428, The reviewer made 4 comments and suggested reconsidering the manuscript after major revision. the reviewer is pleased to note that the paper improved significantly, and the comments were addressed by the author well. Based on significant changes in the text, the overall scientific merit of the paper developed. In general, the reviewer appreciates the efforts of the author in reworking the paper.
From my point of view, the most important improvement of the paper is that the methodological background becomes clear. The most significant practical outcome of the revision was that the authors made extra AP-based calculations. In general, the most important advantage of the paper is that it has a stronger practical connection and background.
(1) The reviewer has only one minor suggestion: some of the newly added citations have been mistyped in the text and in the references. Please carefully reread the references, make corrections where necessary, and then the manuscript is ready from the reviewer’s side.
Nice work!
Overall proposal:
The reviewer suggests publishing the paper after minor changes based on (1).
Author Response
I express my heartfelt gratitude for your valuable feedback and suggestions during the review of my paper. Your assistance has been instrumental, and I truly appreciate your time and effort.
I have made minor changes to the quotation section of the article according to your comments. Your expertise and experience have played a crucial role in shaping my article. All of your insightful comments and recommendations have immensely contributed to the improvement of my work.
Thank you once again for your dedication and commitment to the review process.
